disfavor and are largely ineffective to bar claims for the measure of a worker's legal rights.29[29]   To be valid, a Deed of Release, Waiver and/or Quitclaim must meet the following requirements: (1) that there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any of the parties; (2) that the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (3) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.30 [30] Courts have stepped in to annul questionable transactions, especially where there is clear proof that a waiver, for instance, was obtained from an unsuspecting or a gullible person; or where the agreement or settlement was unconscionable on its face. A quitclaim is ineffective in barring recovery of the full measure of a worker's rights, and the acceptance of benefits therefrom does not amount to estoppel. Moreover, a quitclaim in which the consideration is scandalously low and inequitable cannot be an obstacle to the pursuit of a worker's legitimate claim.31 [31]   Based on the foregoing disquisition, we find the Acknowledgment and Undertaking to be void, as contrary to public policy. Other than the fact that the Acknowledgment and Undertaking did not provide for any consideration given in favor of Lutero, it is likewise evident that the terms thereof are unconscionable and 29[29] Phil. Employ Services and Resources, Inc. v. Paramio, G.R. No. 144786, April 15, 2004, 427 SCRA 732, 755. 30[30] Danzas Intercontinental, Inc. v. Daguman, G.R. No. 154368, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 382, 397-398. 31[31] 698, 708. R & E Transport, Inc. v. Latag, G.R. No. 155214, February 13, 2004, 422 SCRA